The U.S. Supreme Court, in a highly anticipated case, ruled that employers can require as a condition of employment that workers waive their rights to participate in class action lawsuits as part of an arbitration agreement.

In a 5-4 ruling on a trio of cases written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s majority sided with employers whosemandatory arbitration agreements contain waivers that prohibit class action lawsuits. Instead, workers who pursue litigation against an employer must do so as individuals, for most, but not all, types of claims. For example, in California, an arbitration agreement cannot include a representative PAGA claim, and workers’ compensation claims must be decided by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

In reaching its decision, the court noted, “The respective merits of class actions and private arbitration as means of enforcing the law are questions constitutionally entrusted not to the courts to decide…but to the policymakers in the political branches where those questions remain hotly contested … This court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives." Read more here.

Bloomberg News is reporting that Wells Fargo & Co. must pay $97 million to home mortgage consultants and private mortgage bankers in California who didn’t get the breaks they were entitled to under the state’s stringent labor laws.

A federal judge in Los Angeles on Tuesday agreed with the bankers and consultants that the money they were entitled to should be based not just on their hourly pay but also on their commissions. That bumped the damages for the bank well above the $25 million it had argued it owed the employees. The lawsuit alleging various California wage and hour labor violations was brought last year by a Wells Fargo mortgage broker in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson threw out her claims other than the bank’s failure to provide rest breaks and one on unfair competition. Read More Here.

Companies with 250 or more employees that are currently required to keep OSHA injury and illness records, and companies with 20-249 employees that are classified in certain industries with historically high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses, must now electronically submit OSHA Form 300A.

Why is OSHA issuing this rule?

This simple change in OSHA’s rulemaking requirements will improve safety for workers across the country. One important reason stems from our understanding of human behavior and motivation. Behavioral economics tells us that making injury information publicly available will “nudge” employers to focus on safety. And, as we have seen in many examples, more attention to safety will save the lives and limbs of many workers, and will ultimately help the employer’s bottom line as well. Finally, this regulation will improve the accuracy of this data by ensuring that workers will not fear retaliation for reporting injuries or illnesses.

What does the rule require?

The new rule, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2017, requires certain employers to electronically submit injury and illness data that they are already required to record on their onsite OSHA Injury and Illness forms. Analysis of this data will enable OSHA to use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources more efficiently. Some of the data will also be posted to the OSHA website. OSHA believes that public disclosure will encourage employers to improve workplace safety and provide valuable information to workers, job seekers, customers, researchers and the general public. The amount of data submitted will vary depending on the size of company and type of industry.

How will electronic submission work?

OSHA has provided a secure website that offers three options for data submission. First, users are able to manually enter data into a webform. Second, users are able to upload a CSV file to process single or multiple establishments at the same time. Last, users of automated recordkeeping systems will have the ability to transmit data electronically via an API (application programming interface). The Injury Tracking Application (ITA) is accessible from the ITA launch page, where you are able to provide the Agency your 2017 OSHA Form 300A information. The date by which certain employers are required to submit to OSHA the information from their completed 2017 Form 300A is July 1, 2018.

Anti-retaliation protections

The rule also prohibits employers from discouraging workers from reporting an injury or illness. The final rule requires employers to inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses free from retaliation, which can be satisfied by posting the already-required OSHA workplace poster. It also clarifies the existing implicit requirement that an employer’s procedure for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses must be reasonable and not deter or discourage employees from reporting; and incorporates the existing statutory prohibition on retaliating against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses. These provisions become effective August 10, 2016, but OSHA has delayed their enforcement until Dec. 1, 2016.

Covered establishments with 250 or more employees are only required to provide their 2017 Form 300A summary data. OSHA is not accepting Form 300 and 301 information at this time. OSHA announced that it will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to reconsider, revise, or remove provisions of the "Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses" final rule, including the collection of the Forms 300/301 data. The Agency is currently drafting that NPRM and will seek comment on those provisions.

Establishments with 20-249 employees in certain high-risk industries must submit information from their 2017 Form 300A by July 1, 2018. Beginning in 2019 and every year thereafter, the information must be submitted by March 2. Read more here.

In a long anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, No. S222732 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 30, 2018), has adopted a new test, known as the “ABC” test for determining whether an individual is an employee versus an independent contractor under the Wage Orders.

The decision imposes a significant change in independent contractor law, and makes it much more difficult to establish independent contractor status. Read more here.